9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration for the purpose of disposal of these cases. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') and is having Permanent Account No.AGAPA5596A. 3. A search and seizure was conducted at petitioner's business and residential premises on 24.02.2016, in furtherance whereof, a notice under Section 153-A of the Act of 1961, requiring him to file return of income-tax within 30 days came to be issued. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 28.07.2016 and requested the Dy. Commissioner, Income-tax to provide copies of the statements recorded during the course of search and other relevant documents so that a return as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner highlighted the fact that the petitioner had furnished his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and it was only pursuant to search and seizure, which was conducted at petitioner's premises on 24.02.2016, the Income-Tax Department issued a notice under Section 153-A of the Act of 1961 to the petitioner and asked him to furnish return (revised return). 12. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel, invited Court's attention towards the complaint submitted by the Income-Tax Department and pointed out that the department had prayed for petitioner's prosecution for late filing of return, as provided under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Act of 1961, whereas the trial Court has treated it to be a case of evasion of tax and has taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on record, learned counsel argued that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has proceeded arbitrarily and has adopted a rather strict approach and granted permission to prosecute. He prayed that prosecution sanction be quashed. 17. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the Department, at the outset raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, whereby the trial Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner is required to file a revision petition as provided under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code directly is not proper. 18. While emphasizing that the cognizance has been taken under Section 276-CC of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused (petitioner herein) has not filed his return of income for 2013-14 and has evaded the income-tax. 23. In the opinion of this Court, the order of the cognizance shows clear misreading of the complaint and the same suffers from manifest error of law, for which it is liable to be quashed and set aside. 24. Mr. Bissa may be correct in saying that the petitioner ought to have preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code but then, considering that the petitioner and his group has filed about 80 petitions of identical nature, relegating the petitioners to file revision petition(s), that too when the order impugned suffers from palpable error of law and facts, would lead to multiplicity of litigation and passing of dockets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
